Storage abundance will be there when it’s popular enough to farm. And the spamming cost is essentially time and bandwidth. But there is also a question of incentive. It takes around 24 hours to upload a single 1 TB file with an upload speed of 100 Mbit/s. Who would want to upload a lot of files just to spam the network? Spammers generally want to make profit. And with zero profit I don’t see much of an incentive.
Yeah, but it´s not like it will once get popular and that´s it. If the reward is worth close to nothing for some reason it won´t be popular. Again, no math, not estimation. Just wishes.
It ONLY takes around 24 hours and it will use 4 TB space on SAFE since the chunks are copied 4 times. You always estimate that people will add more storage than there is input, there´s really no logic that could make that sure. Again, wishes.
Awwwwww, let´s see…me? And everyone else? I have TBs of data that I want to dump on the network. It´s free, isn´t it? Spam is a matter of perspective. To me a lot of posts on this forum are spam, to other´s they aren´t - maybe they concern my posts as spam, who knows? If people decide to dump their files which neither they nor anyone else will ever access anymore, yes, that´s spam. If you offer free space to the people, expect all of them to come. You won´t need commercial spammers.
Spammers don´t always want to make profit - at least not in the “money” sense. Many spam for fun or to show other people that they are able to damage, or just because they want to see whether a system is bulletproof. If you want to call all of that “profit”, well…
It’s difficult to predict human behavior. At least you admit that when people have to pay for PUTs there will be less data uploaded which probably means reduced network effect. Are you sure then that there will be enough network effect to make the network grow sufficiently? I have heard an argument that PUTs will be very cheap. For early adopters it’s likely that most of them will farm enough to be able to pay for PUTs, but for the early and late majority of users I’m less convinced of that.
That’s true, but surely upload speed will be the bottleneck and not data storage. 4 TB has to be transferred (maybe not all of it by the client but at least by the network as a whole). Upload speeds are often slower than download speeds.
How could I be sure? I don´t pretend to own a crystal ball. What I am saying is that network effect doesn´t matter when the network is rigged. It is up to you (or whoever believes that this is a workable thing) to show that it actually works - not the task of others to prove you wrong.
I heard quite the opposite, ask @janitor. Let´s face it, we can hear a lot of stuff here. I prefer to rely on arguments that I can somehow follow.
I fail to see how that´s relevant. How many users do you believe will use the network within the first year? How much storage will they provide, how much storage will they use? How would the price effect the SAFE economy? None of us knows, but let´s use virtual numbers to see what COULD happen. Let´s say you have 1000 users in the first month and 500 of them provide an avarage of 500 GB that´s 250 TB of storage. In the same time all users store data, some of them store more, some less, but let´s say that all of them store an avarage of 100 GB of data, then you have 100 TB of storage, quadrupled that´s 400 TB - so that goes far beyond the available space - and that´s not even spam.
In the end it boils down to the question: will the avarage user provide 4x more space than heshe uses himherself. If not the network is rigged just by normal use - no ill intended spam needed.
Janitors calculations/statement are false, it has been pointed out multiple times on different subjects
And that’s only three topics I’ve quickly found after going through his posts, It’s quite shocking to see this actually, I didn’t know it was this much (probably even more)
I wasn´t saying he is right, just pointing out, that on the forum there is a lot of hearsay. We cannot have a debate based on what what can be heard by someone on the forum.
Ok, I wasn’t too sure how to interpret your post. I’ve been afraid that someone was going to take over his statements so I wanted to make this clear. Thanks for clearing up.
There’s only one guy that knows the true potential of this network and I don’t think he’s open to helping cloned networks.
The separate libraries however are a different matter and it’s been publicly stated here, that maidsafe hopes projects will use the libraries to improve their own projects…and they will receive assistance from Maidsafe.
Once the dust settles and David has the time to put into words what he thinks this organism is…I just wonder if Pi is in there somewhere.
“The special thing is that it brings out a beautiful connection between physics and math,” said Friedmann. “I find it fascinating that a purely mathematical formula from the 17th century characterizes a physical system that was discovered 300 years later.”
Hah - you write as if a successful Safecoin launch is just behind us and I was proven wrong.
If anything, the topics - especially the recent one - have shown that problems with rewards are plenty and they are all yet to be resolved.
@Anders why don’t you organize your own set of seed VMs for the period after launch so that people can us MaidiSafe software join a forked network. It’d probably cost only few hundred dollars to modify source code to eliminate or lower costs. You could crowdfund this like SafeX and other projects are doing it.
That’s possible perhaps except the average storage usage may be less. Because while some people store a lot of data most of them only store small amounts of data because of slow upload speeds. For example with 10 Mbit/s upload and 100 Mbit/s download speeds, then it will take a lot of time for a user to upload data.
Also, with a flat inflation rate there is a great first-mover advantage for the early farmers, so farming can become very popular in the beginning which will cause a profusion of excess storage capacity in the network. When the network has grown large, then the total farming reward is spread out among a larger number of farmers, so each farmer will earn less coins, although the actual value of the coin will increase if it’s a good enough coin. In the very long term scenario the flat coin inflation will result in less and less supply increase each year percentage-wise. Fiat currencies have an exponential inflation such as inflating a fixed percentage of the total (and growing) supply each year. A flat inflation is long-term much less than what fiat currencies have.
Safecoin is a really good cryptocurrency if divisibility is included. One drawback is that safecoins are somewhat “clunky” in the sense of having to be transferred one by one, but that’s perhaps still good enough. An alternative is to transfer coins directly between accounts. That allows divisibility and efficient transactions even for millions of coins.
I don’t have the knowledge or the stamina to make a fork. MaidSafe could launch an A/B test with A as the ordinary SAFE network and B as a free network.
EDIT: MaidSafe actually will more or less be forced to launch one or more forks, to preempt other forks. Although MaidSafe will be separate from the SAFE network itself, they will continue to support core development if I have understood it correctly, or at least they have a separate foundation for the SAFE network. I assume that the cryptocurrency business arena is pretty ruthless so MaidSafe needs to be tough to maintain preeminence which includes launching their own forks.
Didn’t this get discussed to death in 2 other rather large threads?
Have you been able to do any analysis that is not really all belief based.
The free get/put model is completely open to abuse and being brought down quickly by a large malicious entity (as previous discussed to death).
For this to be useful it has to get traction, and there is no traction points for a coin that has no intrinsic value and only hoarders/speculators will buy. It is hard enough to get BTC accepted as a item of value for purchases and sales, and it has traction. BTC is the only one with any practical traction and it got that from being the first and has difficulty to obtain. Your free model has no such hurdle to obtain. Its worse than free tokens in that there is nothing to use it on and no starting point. Only luck or a financial backer could create such a traction and hope it catches on, but BTC shows it is very difficult even when it has momentum. your coin would have none of that. Also Bitcoin is not free for anything, large mining costs, transaction costs etc. Your free model means that you have a simple to use free token system, nowhere for traction to get things started.
Anyhow its all been said in the other 2 large threads and I have no plans to continue here. Unless you actually do some reasoning beyond what boils down to belief evangelism.
They will not do this, it is pretty obvious that it has little chance of working and IS the reason they introduced the network “oil” to make things move. It was to be a free model then they realised later on the free model will not fly. SAFEcoin was not introduce to make people rich, but to encourage people to follow certain patterns which will help the network operate with plenty of storage and content that people will want, so they use SAFE.
I’m only pointing out your calculations and statements have been false multiple times, not making any statements myself besides proofing yours are wrong. But lets not go off-topic too much here, if you want to discuss this further we can start a mee topic in the off-topic category or send me a PM.
I just posted about that in another comment. For convenience I repeat it here: MaidSafe actually will more or less be forced to launch one or more forks, to preempt other forks. Although MaidSafe will be separate from the SAFE network itself, they will continue to support core development if I have understood it correctly, or at least they have a separate foundation for the SAFE network. I assume that the cryptocurrency business arena is pretty ruthless so MaidSafe needs to be tough to maintain preeminence which includes launching their own forks.
[quote=“Anders, post:51, topic:6174”]
That’s possible perhaps except the average storage usage may be less. Because while some people store a lot of data most of them only store small amounts of data because of slow upload speeds. For example with 10 Mbit/s upload and 100 Mbit/s download speeds, then it will take a lot of time for a user to upload data.[/quote]
A lot of time? That’s your argument? Even with 10MBit I can upload 3TB per month an if I can store all my stuff for free and safe on the Web, why wouldn’t I do that?
Tbh, my example was quite optimistic to demonstrate that even if you only consider normal storing with a lot of farming it’s going to fail. In your free-for-all model I don’t expect a farmer rate of 50%, but rather 5%. Most people won’t bother to farm, particularly not in the beginning, because it is absolutely unclear whether the coin will be a success. And there will be people like me testing the solidity of the network, sending data with 30Mbit onto connected devices. Then you’ll see huge amounts of incoming data, multiplying 4 times on a tiny network. Congratulations. As @neo said, this has been discussed to death - and the main reason is not that you are wrong, but that you reject being more concrete that “this is not going to happen”.
That may be a real risk, but there is a risk with having to pay for PUTs too because that may result in too small network effect. An A/B test with two separate networks is a way of reducing the risk. If nobody would fork the SAFE network, then having just the original version would perhaps be less risky, but there is a significant probability that others will fork the SAFE network.
I’m counting on that farming will become very popular. Especially in the beginning because many of the early adopters will be cryptocurrency and tech savvy. And with an A/B test the early adopters will likely farm for both networks to see what coin becomes more valuable, and then later start farming for only either A or B depending on which coin becomes more successful.
The early adopters will likely farm as well as store data, and if they waste all their upload bandwidth on storing data they will have no bandwidth left for farming. And because of the first-mover advantage of farming many users will prioritize farming over storing tons of data.
I wonder if the whole discussions on earning has not been completely derailed and tainted by the lust and greed for making bucks and falling for the ancient false promises of any money and monetary system.
The only thing that this or any networks needs to maintain and uphold for my liking is to act the same way as me, meaning I give my storage space or computational power so does my fellow node(s) need to do the same. Cooperation is the only way.
And I am kind of frustrated by all those threads chatting and getting pissed about how high or low some value of some shiny fakecoin is or will be or was and how much or how little some early or late investors have won or lost and all the whining.
Why mimic the behavior of humanity that has failed us for thousands of years. Is it still not time for cooperation? Why do I need to gain advantage over anybody and make riches from thin air or at the expenses of others or by their labor and work.
All the buzz about if free gets or puts or both, this network will never go anywhere: guess what? How does bittorrent or any other network and community work where people just share or transfer happily ever since their invention. Where does ‘money’ flow there and how do people ‘earn’ there?
I would very much welcome progress in the minds of people at last. That is the only thing which hinders our era.
All that it takes is your will(ingness) to do so, nothing else. There is no law of physics or something preventing you from cooperating. Introducing money and fincancial like systems only complicates and immediately decays the fundamental ideas. I have never ever experienced it any differently.
If money is all that you love, then that’s what you’ll receive.